I was amongst the chosen few to present to the Select Committee on this Bill. I have made several presentations over the years, and this process would have to be the worst by far. Part way through my presentation I scanned the very few people who were present. None of them appeared to be listening and all were attending to matters on their computers. I performed like a kite which had the wind taken out of its sail. I should have stopped and challenged them, but I didn’t.
In the weekend I read that this Bill was part of the Coalition Agreement, so it didn’t matter what anybody said, it is going to pass anyway. Some of NZ’s greatest minds have picked this Bill apart. For this Seymour has called them names and verbally abused them. This government is proving that MMP politics isn’t working. The party which gained 8% of the vote ambushed the leader of the National Party with a condition that he was too stupid to see as a trap, such was his desperation to add the words “former PM of NZ” to his cv.
- I sat fuming as I watched Sir Geoffrey Palmer use his 10 minutes to present his views. Here’s a summary of what he said so passionately https://lawnews.nz/administrative-public/former-pm-slates-regulatory-standards-bill-as-dangerous-wrong-and-lacking-constitutional-legitimacy/. Read the patronising dribble spoken by Seymour in response.
- Then I read about Professor Jane Kelsey flying down to Wellington to undertake here presentation to find that there were NO MPs in the room. This was a disgrace. Jane Kelsey Faces Empty Select Committee Room for RSB submission.
- Dame Anne Salmond wrote in Newsroom https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/07/15/anne-salmond-freedom-for-whom/. I particularly enjoyed this:
..passionate rhetoric about individual rights and freedoms by Act and its supporters emerges as ‘double speak,’ talk that disguises an opposite intention – in this case, to force others to adopt libertarian values about the primacy of private property and the rights of corporations as legal persons, using the law to do it.
This includes imposing libertarian versions of ‘freedom of speech’ on universities, alongside efforts to control the media in New Zealand, including the internet.
Rather than the pursuit of freedom of speech, this is a fundamentally authoritarian project, underpinned by a sense of intellectual superiority. Anyone who thinks differently from the Act party, its think tanks and its backers is misguided or a fool, and must be made to pull the forelock and bow the knee, by law.
‘Closed’ rather than ‘open’ minds, backed by the exercise of political power.
Faced with this kind of imposition, most New Zealanders would tell its proponents to get lost. Democratic values, a care for others and the land are still strong in this country, if not in some political parties.
I’m hoping this article in the weekend was correct https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360727419/how-seymours-bill-could-blow-coalition.
I feel our political setting in NZ is heading fast into following Trump’s USA. Are we going to just lay back and say, “tickle here, David”, or are we going to challenge this libertarian nonsense.
For all its worth here’s my written submission, and my verbal follow-up to the Select Committee:
Submission on Regulatory Standards Bill 23 June 2025 by Garry Moore
My name is Garry Anthony Moore of Christchurch, New Zealand.
I oppose this entire Bill and consider it must be abandoned. I wish to be heard about my objection.
- I served as Mayor of Christchurch for 9 years, and a City Councillor for 6 years before that.
- A good proportion of the role of a mayor is to protect and enhance the collective wellbeing of local, residents, infrastructure and shared assets of the ratepayers.
- It was impossible to perform this civic role by only measuring decision-making against the impact on individual residents. All our decisions reinforced collective impacts. This Bill could destroy collective approaches by Local Government through the ability of the Minister to intervene if they disagree with local actions, especially those involving wealthy interests.
In my opinion in its Principles this Bill:
- Places significant emphasis on economic efficiency, and overprotection of individual rights.
- Fails to give equal weight to other legitimate public policy objectives, such as advancing equity, protecting collective wellbeing, and enabling long-term environmental sustainability.
- Anything promoting the public good is not emphasised or supported.
This Bill:
- Reduces NZ’ers ability to be consulted.
- Promotes private vested interests against collective interests.
- Centralises power and decision making and must be rejected.
Commentary:
The Constitution of the ACT party has no section handing power to one party member on any issue. Nor does it have a powerful non-elected panel, to arbitrate on party matters. ACT’s constitution does not propose the sort of framework enshrined in this Bill: yet ACT desires to impose on all NZ’ers a totally undemocratic and centralised structure which itself does not practice.
Parliament must never grant the power envisaged by this Bill to one Minister, who will handpick the Regulatory Standards Board. The proposed level of power resting in one Minister is fundamentally wrong.
When our local authority, debated and voted on a submission to this Bill, it was publicly berated by Minister Seymour, possibly before he had even read the submission. This behaviour vindicates my concerns about Parliament handing enormous power to somebody who prefers name calling to sensible and serious debate.
A commitment to a collective greater good was demonstrated by NZ First over the inter-island ferry issues. This Party rose above their interests and acknowledged the collective importance of this service to the South Island. I urge NZ First to step up and remove this poorly thought-through libertarian nonsense.
I recommend that the Select Committee reject this Bill in its entirety.
My spoken submission was this:
I’m speaking as a former local body mayor, and I have had a 50-year interest in politics. I am currently not a member of any political party.
I’m especially speaking to the National and New Zealand First Select Committee members. In the heat of negotiations to get a government coalition agreement not everything is well thought through at that time. Several times before this proposed Bill has been rejected by both your parties.
Did your voters vote for National or New Zealand First, or for a party which won 8% of the vote? I doubt it.
My concerns against this bill are laid out in my written submission.
My main criticism of this Bill is that it effectively reduces decisions down to measuring benefits in society, with the assistance of vested interests, where every decision is viewed from the perspective of an individual. This is libertarian nonsense. Oscar Wilde would have said that this Bill reflects knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
This Bill places enormous power with one minister who has the job of choosing their own advisors. The advice from a number of government agencies has warned against this occurring.
I have found it interesting to observe that the Minister promoting this Bill lambastes many critics. An example would be regarding the Christchurch City Council where the full council deliberated over a submission to this Bill and it was passed with no votes recorded against it. The minister referred to the council as “Putins”, probably before he had even read the submission.
Another critic of the Bill was Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a distinguished jurist and former PM, and other critics, who were informed by the same Minister that they didn’t understand law making. That is yet another personal attack, unbecoming of a deputy PM.
Committee members let me go back to the coalition agreement:
- are you going to be whipped into line by your party machines to completely turn the Select Committee process into a farce?
- An important constitutional bill is being rushed through with only 30 hours of hearings. Who decided this?
- It is possible to challenge the coalition agreement. Winston Peters did this with the inter-island ferry issue. National had decided to ditch these ferries with no alternatives considered and Winston Peters cleverly interfered with this malaise and saved our ferries. For this, South Islanders are extremely grateful.
In conclusion Mr. Chair and Committee members, I challenge you to reflect on Trump’s inauguration ceremony. Wealthy people paid $1,000,000 each to sit behind him. This Bill prepares the path for this to happen here.
Leave a Reply